[Tex-Con-Man]

Sotomayor, Kagan, Bader-Ginsberg and Breuer are not needed to get those four votes to accept an Obama eligibility appeal.

Kerchner is responsible for that little fairytale...

"I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO."

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

[jamese777]

Kerchner is responsible for that little fairytale...

“I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

---

Kerchner had an appeal go to the Supreme Court and he never heard of the “rule of four?” How bizarre.
The Clinton-Obama appointed justices are irrelevant to granting cert and to being a majority on ruling Obama to be ineligible. Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are the majority.

From the Wikipedia entry on “the rule of four.”
“The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court’s own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891.”